The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to seek permission under the KLR Act does not disentitle a petitioner from claiming compensation for land as converted land, and the land can be considered as converted land for the purpose of payment of compensation.

1. The facts of the case are as follows:-

2. The petitioner is said to be the owner of land bearing Survey No.8/2, measuring 6 acres and 16 guntas, of Karur village, Davangere taluk and district. The land is said to be on the Pune - Bangalore Highway. It is claimed that the area around the petitioner's land has developed into a commercial area and that the surroundings have lost their agricultural character. It is for this reason that the petitioner is said to have approached the competent authority seeking change in land use under Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KTCP Act', for brevity) as on 21.11.1997. It was said to have been granted on 28.11.1997.

It is stated that the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) prepared by the Town Planning Authority of Davangere Development Authority has incorporated the change of land use from "Semi- Public use" to "Residential use" in the CDP. The petitioner is said to have formed a residential layout consisting of 149 house sites. The layout plan is said to have been approved by the Davangere Development Authority and the Town Planning Authority - on 1.12.1998.

The petitioner had not disposed of the house sites by the time the second respondent had issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act', for brevity) dated 5.3.2001, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner, apart from other lands. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections. Inspite of which, a final notification is said to have been issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, on 1.3.2002. Possession was also said to have been taken. An award termed as a 'consent award' is said to have been passed, though the petitioner claims never to have consented to the same.

It transpires that several land owners, who had obtained permission for conversion of land use, being aggrieved by the compensation amount, payable in respect of the lands acquired, at Rs.4 lakh per acre, had raised a serious protest, at which an Advisory Committee was said to have been formed by the authorities, which in turn, recommended the rate of compensation of Rs.155/- per square foot, in respect of converted lands.

It transpires that the said rate of compensation was not paid to the several land owners, which had compelled them to approach this court by way of writ petitions in WP 13398-13407/2009, and it was only on an order being passed, that the respondents are said to have paid the same. As the petitioner was also denied compensation at the rate fixed for converted land, he is said to have made representations to the respondents seeking the same.

As it was not considered, the petitioner is said to have approached this court by way of a writ petition in WP 15484/2011 and this court by its order dated 2.6.2011, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. It transpires that the second respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the conversion order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

(Hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act', for brevity) as per order dated 31.12.2012. It is this which is under challenge in this petition.

3. Shri R.L.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that first of all, the purported award made in favour of the petitioner being termed as a 'consent award', is itself misleading. The petitioner had never consented to any such award.

It is contended that the petitioner having approached the competent authority under the provisions of the KTCP Act and having obtained an order as to the change in the user of the land, the insistence on the part of the second respondent in demanding the production of a conversion order under Section 95 of the KLR Act, was wholly redundant.

Reliance is placed on a decision of this court in the case